Thursday will see the first American political contest to select delegates to the nominating conventions for presidential candidate of the Democrat
and Republican parties.

It is not a ballot vote. Instead, you go to a room (such as a school gym) and the organizers will tell you where to stand, according to which
candidate you favor. Everyone can see whom you choose. If you are embarrassed to go to a small group, you might change your mind and head for a
larger group. Or, you might be influenced by where your family members go, or where your pastor goes, or where your boss goes. You might even decide
you DON'T want to be in the same group as someone you dislike!

When everyone has chosen which group to stand with, you might find yourself in a group so small (under 15%) that the leader will declare the
candidate "non-viable," in which case the group is dissolved and everyone in it can go to their second choice. But, since there are many locations
across the state, it's possible a lesser candidate could get 15% in some places, but not others.

I've heard it said this is not so much like a normal voting process, as it is like choosing teams for ball games in the school gymn class.

I understand there is virtually no restriction on who may caucus. If you expect to be in Iowa when the presidential vote will be held, you can
caucus, even if you live in another state now. If you are under 18 now, but will be 18 when the vote is to be held, you can caucus.

The three leaders of the Democrats are nearly tied, according to polls, and two of the Republicans are nearly tied.

I wonder if any of the campaigns will bus in people from outside Iowa to participate in the caucus process? It would be wrong, but not illegal.

scholar - 1-1-2008 at 21:30

There has also been discussion of the WEATHER and the EXPECTED TURNOUT.

In any given year, most of the people who show up to caucus are people who have been to a caucus before. Edwards, who sought to be the candidate four
years ago and who was the vice-presidential candidate when the Democrat party narrowly lost that year, is familiar to politically-active Iowans. Most
of his followers have attended before. If there is a small turnout, it helps his chances.

Obama is most popular among younger people, especially those age 34 or less, many of whom have never done a caucus before. There must be a large
turn-out, with these people part of the increase, for him to do well.

Hillary (she chooses to use her first name in the campaign signs, etc., clearly distinguishing herself from the former President) is most popular
among older women, among whom a fair number have never caucused before. A larger turnout, reflecting those older women showing up for the first time,
would help her.

Part of the state may have severe weather conditions (i.e. snow drifting over the roads, and perhaps strong winds) on the night of the caucus
(Thursday at 7 p.m.). Conventional wisdom is that this would favor a lower turnout, helping Edwards. However, if young people would be more likely
to brave the snow, it could help Obama. Hillary would considered most likely to be hurt, on the theory that older women who have are going for the
first time would be least likely to brave the snowstorm for an unfamiliar experience.

Among the three candidates, I think Hillary is most likely to transport in voters from out-of-state, since she has been so bold in planting questions,
taking contributions from a criminal until he was exposed, and lying. Snowy weather might throw a wrench into transportation plans. (She may not
come in second, but she very much does not want to come in third. If she is seen to be that vulnerable, it could open up a lot of money and personal
support to Obama and Edwards, from people who do not wish to support them unless the support will lead to a win.)

marymary100 - 1-1-2008 at 21:51

I'll not be flying in to caucus, no matter how appealing the notion is.................

scholar - 1-1-2008 at 23:06

I have just heard a news account on the radio, which says the process I have described is the way the Democrat party does a causus. The Republicans
each write a name on a piece of paper, and the papers are counted (like home-made ballots).

Which method do you think is better?

marymary100 - 1-1-2008 at 23:51

Both sound open to manipulation in my opinion.

Chrno - 2-1-2008 at 01:01

OBAMA 08! Sorry, but I'm just enthusiastic

marymary100 - 2-1-2008 at 01:04

Why? He's largely untested in high office.

scholar - 2-1-2008 at 01:08

Obama, Hillary, and Edwards (the three front-runners among Democrats) have all held the same office--Senator.

marymary100 - 2-1-2008 at 01:15

I'm asking why Obama? It's not good enough to give a negative account of other candidates. Why would he be good enough for America and the West?

Chrno - 2-1-2008 at 07:21

Honestly,
Why would any of them? I personally find them all pretty crummy, Obama's just the one I relate the most to.

marymary100 - 2-1-2008 at 09:41

That's my worry. Look at how badly you did last time.............

Chrno - 2-1-2008 at 14:11

I would vote for a penguin before voting Bush in again.
Then again, not I personally, did a bad job last year. This would be my first year able to vote.

marymary100 - 2-1-2008 at 15:23

Why do Americans all claim to love their country but act as if they hate their government?

The government works for you.

Elect the people you really feel can represent you appropriately.

janet - 2-1-2008 at 15:37

It's not that simple - and in fact, it's much the same here...

At least in the US people come closer to electing the president than they do here, to electing the PM. (I'm not saying either system is better,
btw).

And, conversely, I could quote something heard (read) not that long ago on this very forum: "I love Americans, I just hate America". (I may paraphrase... but it was jolly close to that).

But again and again here, I see English or UK people go on and on about what "they" are doing, meaning the government... the phenomena is not
confined to the US.

marymary100 - 2-1-2008 at 16:50

Many of the people who complain about government failings don't bother to do anything about it...........like vote or make contact with their
representative etc.

What's the point of living in a democracy if you don't participate in the process?

Maybe there should be a financial penalty for not voting?

janet - 2-1-2008 at 16:55

You know my feelings on sitting back and expecting every other ... person to do things...

delanti - 2-1-2008 at 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by marymary100
The government works for you.

You are joking aren't you? marymary100 - 2-1-2008 at 17:48

No and anyone who thinks they don't is letting them know they can do what they like without penalty.

John Barnes - 2-1-2008 at 20:11

To broach a sensitive subject about the upcoming election of the next American president. would the white majority vote a coloured person into such an
high office,? there is a vast numerical majority of whites in the USA and judging by the last 50 years the coloured population of America have had a
very steep hill to climb it is only 50 years since the Rosa Parks incident , jmb

marymary100 - 2-1-2008 at 20:28

I don't think that they use the term "coloured" any more JMB. Looking at the donations that Obama received, $58m in 6 months with a large
proportion made up from small donations of $200 per person, I think he has/had a groundswell of popular support.

Whether these donors will actually go out and vote when it matters remains to be seen.

Healthcare is said to be one of the main issues that will decide this election.

John Barnes - 2-1-2008 at 22:05

I am a product of my generation and the word coloured was used then, it is much better than using the N word, who made it politically correct not to
use Coloured ? it is used without any prejudice on my part and as long as it is legal it will still be used by my generation.and I don't think the
same generation need a lesson on political correctness by a younger generation. jmb

scholar - 2-1-2008 at 22:15

Quote:

Originally posted by John Barnes
To broach a sensitive subject about the upcoming election of the next American president. would the white majority vote a coloured person into such an
high office,? there is a vast numerical majority of whites in the USA and judging by the last 50 years the coloured population of America have had a
very steep hill to climb it is only 50 years since the Rosa Parks incident , jmb

Senator Obama is of mixed
heritage. In his own words, his father was "black as pitch" and his mother was "white as milk."

I have no doubt that, for most regular voters, the main basis for their vote would be their political preference, not the shade of the candidate's
skin. In presidential elections, the Democrats generally get most of the votes of black people. This is in spite of the fact that the Republicans
were the party of Lincoln, and allied with some Democrats to pass the civil rights legislation which some Democrats tried to block, and the
Republicans have had some excellent, high-level positions held by talented black leaders (Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of State
Condaliza Rice, and Justice Thomas).

I think it is fair to conclude that the majority of black voters has been more sympathetic to the Democrat party's approach to using government as a
tool to improve society, on a larger scale than most Republicans would favor.
scholar - 2-1-2008 at 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by marymary100
Whether these donors will actually go out and vote when it matters remains to be seen.

Anyone who has
actually given a financial donation can be counted on to vote for that candidate. No one gives $100 to convince others to vote, and then doesn't
consider voting important enough to bother (there are exceptions, of course, such strokes and other severe health issues).

(Illegal donations, like the thousands of dollars given to Hillary's campaign for which the names of people making minimum wage as restaurant workers
in Chinatown restaurants were listed, might not correspond to any votes.)

A very, very small percentage of people make voluntary financial contributions to political candidates. The Democrats tend to get help from the union
political action funds, which are deducted from the members' paychecks. This has worked against the Republicans, who have sometimes won half the
votes of a union's membership, but the members' money is used for the Democrat ads. In those cases where a Republican gets a union endorsement, it
is big news because it goes against the general practice.

On the other hand, Republicans tend to get more contributions from businesses--but those contributions are limited by the campaign finance laws.
marymary100 - 2-1-2008 at 22:38

Why, are they green, purple and orange?

scholar - 2-1-2008 at 22:44

Quote:

Originally posted by marymary100
Healthcare is said to be one of the main issues that will decide this election.

That will depend on who
gets the nomination of each party.

Edwards says he will enact a mandatory government health care program that will require Americans to go to the doctor for examinations. (Perhaps he
will back off the coercive nature of his plan if he gets the nomination.)

Hillary has the most experience in working on the details of a national health care plan. What she is proposing is much more moderate than her first
proposals, which were so completely rejected in the first Clinton administration.

Governor Romney worked out a comprehensive state health care plan in Massachusettes, in which all the residents were required to have health
insurance, but the state helps poor people pay for theirs. The thinking was, poor people who could get preventive care from state-sponsored insurance
would cost the state less, compared to the greater cost of treating advanced illnesses in hospitals. If Romney gets the nomination, Hillary will face
her worst nightmare: a Republican with a better health care plan than hers, who has several years of actual executive government experience, without
the financial scandals which have plagued her.
marymary100 - 2-1-2008 at 22:55

A statistic I heard quoted today said that 250m people have at least basic health care in the US while 50m do not. If this is true it is a scandal
that poverty exempts so many people from treatment in the US.

The 250m who do have health care would also find that many expensive treatments would not be covered fully. Sometimes this can mean the difference
between life and death.

Do you fundamentally believe that the child of an office cleaner has less of an entitlement to healthcare than the child of the office CEO?

Have you seen Sicko?

scholar - 2-1-2008 at 23:19

Marymary, I haven't checked the statistics, but I it seems to me there is a failure to distinguish between health care and health insurance.
Everybody can get health care--just walk into a doctor's office, or medical clinic, or hospital emergency room.

The government has medicare to help pay for older people, and medicaid to pay for poor people. Illinois and several other states have additional
government health care, in addition to what the federal government provides. Many employers either provide medical insurance as part of their
employee compensation, or they offer it at group rates with the employee having the option of having it deducted from their paycheck. Besides this,
there is charity care (such as I have), and there is research care (I know of cancer patients whose care was paid, with their agreement that
information was taken down for research purposes).

There are millions of young people who have access to health care, but who choose not to be insured. They may be children (whose parents will take
care of them, as necessary), or young adults who do not expect to get sick or injured, and who decide for themselves it is more important to them to
have a nice car, or eat out more often, or have nicer clothes.

scholar - 2-1-2008 at 23:32

In any case, if Gov. Romney gets the nomination, it will be a case of two competing health care plans.

marymary100 - 2-1-2008 at 23:32

America's healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world despite being ranked the wealthiest country.

marymary100 - 2-1-2008 at 23:42

Professor Reinhardt, of Princeton University, says people need to decide whether medical care should be like public education—where every American
simply has a right to it—or if it should be treated like a luxury good. Currently, he says healthcare is like fine dining…if you have the money, you
get it, and if you don't, you won't.

He made the point that Americans already get social policing and schooling and wonders why you are so afraid of social medicine.

scholar - 2-1-2008 at 23:43

Quote:

Originally posted by marymary100
America's healthcare system is ranked 37th in the world despite being ranked the wealthiest country.

I
often read about people flying in from other places around the world, to get medical care in the U.S. Sometimes they are millionaires, who could be
treated anywhere in the world, but they choose the U.S.

How often do you hear of U.S. millionaires leaving the U.S. for treatment in a country with government health care?

I've never heard of anyone saying, "No, no, the Mayo Clinic gives lousy care. Take me to a place where the government runs the medical system.
Take me to Cuba!"

I do know that Canadians who would die if they had to wait for their government care come down to the U.S. to get operations they need. They are
worried what they will do if the U.S. adopts a similar system.

I wonder on what basis the U.S. is ranked 37th?scholar - 2-1-2008 at 23:56

Quote:

Originally posted by marymary100
He made the point that Americans already get social policing and schooling and wonders why you are so afraid of social medicine.

When my son was in high school, he was threatened with a brutal beating (concussions and fractures) unless he appeased the bully who threatened him.
He knew it would happen, because the guy had done it to others. "Social education" did not even keep him safe. If the school were private,
officials who would not keep the students safe would be replaced with ones who would--but the government monopoly does nothing.

Chicago is trying to get four people who were brutalized by a Chicago policeman to get false confessions, to agree to a settlement of $6,000,000.

So, health care should be "social" the same as education and police? Good Lord, deliver us!
marymary100 - 3-1-2008 at 00:07

So it should be like fine dining? Exclude the poor? Good grief.
Medicine in the US is fine if you can afford it. What would happen to you scholar if you got some life threatening illness? Are you saying you would
walk into the hospital and they would treat you?

janet - 3-1-2008 at 00:13

Quote:

Originally posted by scholar
Marymary, I haven't checked the statistics, but I it seems to me there is a failure to distinguish between health care and health insurance.
Everybody can get health care--just walk into a doctor's office, or medical clinic, or hospital emergency room.

The government has medicare to help pay for older people, and medicaid to pay for poor people. Illinois and several other states have additional
government health care, in addition to what the federal government provides. Many employers either provide medical insurance as part of their
employee compensation, or they offer it at group rates with the employee having the option of having it deducted from their paycheck. Besides this,
there is charity care (such as I have), and there is research care (I know of cancer patients whose care was paid, with their agreement that
information was taken down for research purposes).

There are millions of young people who have access to health care, but who choose not to be insured. They may be children (whose parents will take
care of them, as necessary), or young adults who do not expect to get sick or injured, and who decide for themselves it is more important to them to
have a nice car, or eat out more often, or have nicer clothes.

Have things changed that much?

Last time I had anything to do with US hospitals, which was four years ago, the first question when you walked in, was about insurance- the same was
true of docor's offices...? If you just walk in and ask for treatment, with no proof of ability to pay, you'll be treated?

This was certainly not the expeirence of my family, nor of my friends.... has it really changed?

(And yes, here that is precisely what happens - a GP's surgery would want you to register, but I've never had a hospital ask any such question).
scholar - 3-1-2008 at 00:37

Janet, hospitals and hospital emergency rooms have laws which govern the care they are required to give without regard to ability to pay.

A number of insurance plans and HMOs require notification, or for some non-emergency procedures pre-approval, for reimbursement. If a hospital is
going to give $3000 worth of care, and must fill out a form and make a phone call to get paid by the patient's medical coverage, they will prefer to
fill out the form and make the phone call.

marymary100 - 3-1-2008 at 00:45

Why, then, did this man here claim
on national US television that his wife hadn't been able to get a full medical exam for 7 years until a millionaire stepped in to pay for it?

janet - 3-1-2008 at 09:16

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Originally posted by scholar
Janet, hospitals and hospital emergency rooms have laws which govern the care they are required to give without regard to ability to pay.

That doesn't answer my question.

Will they give any care, to anyone, regardless of ability to pay, or only lifesaving care?

A number of insurance plans and HMOs require notification, or for some non-emergency procedures pre-approval, for reimbursement. If a hospital is
going to give $3000 worth of care, and must fill out a form and make a phone call to get paid by the patient's medical coverage, they will prefer to
fill out the form and make the phone call.

And if the person has no insurance?

In other words, one can not just walk into any hospital and receive care, regardless of ability to pay?
LSemmens - 3-1-2008 at 10:56

In Oz they can. The "non urgent" stuff does require a long wait, though.

scholar - 3-1-2008 at 13:00

Robert Novak thinks the following results are most likely:

Democrat:
1Obama
2Edwards
3Hillary

Republican:
1Romney
2Huckabee
3Thompson
4McCain

marymary100 - 3-1-2008 at 13:48

It's worth noting that you have written "Hillary" rther than Clinton when you have accorded all other candidates their surname. They should all be
given the same status surely?

scholar - 3-1-2008 at 14:05

Quote:

Originally posted by marymary100
It's worth noting that you have written "Hillary" rther than Clinton when you have accorded all other candidates their surname. They should all be
given the same status surely?

In each case, I use the name the candidate uses on their campaign
literature. Barack Obama's signs, buttons, and ads say Obama; Hillary Clinton's signs, buttons, and ads say Hillary. In presidential politics, the
name Clinton first conjures up the former president, with Senator Clinton as an afterthought. By choosing Hillary, she distinguishes herself from
him, and may also be emphasizing she is the first serious female contender for the nomination.
marymary100 - 3-1-2008 at 14:28

I'd rather they all had an equal footing. People aren't stupid enough to think that they're voting for Bill................or are they?

scholar - 3-1-2008 at 18:42

It's her campaign's choice, her strategy, to go as "Hillary." I would be choosing to go against her own choice if I listed every other candidate
as they wish to be described, but not her.

When Bill Clinton ran, he said that his wife was very smart and helpful to him, politically, and that anyone electing him was getting two-for-one.
There has been some discussion that Democrats who wish they could elect Bill Clinton a third time may be hoping that electing Hillary is the next best
thing.

I think that, once elected, Hillary will be more of an independent thinker than Bill Clinton was, but she will certainly call on his political skills
to try to win people over to support her programs and goals. If it happens, we will see how it turns out.

marymary100 - 3-1-2008 at 18:48

She's expected to do well on Super Tuesday. Iowa isn't that important overall.

scholar - 3-1-2008 at 19:05

One of her campaign managers argued that she should skip Iowa, that it wasn't worth the time and effort. But she overruled him--she thought it was
important, that she could win it fairly easily, and that it was worthwhile.

Now, in a desperate effort to win, she is giving away snow shovels, offering to shovel the walks and driveways of people who will come out for her
(her volunteers, of course, not her personally), offering free rides, and offering free babysitting while her voters are at caucus.

I heard a conservative radio pundit say, "That sounds like a Hillary supporter--willing to hand their children over to strangers for free child care
and willing to vote for someone who will give them things for free."

scholar - 3-1-2008 at 19:12

Someone who is against Romney's candidacy (but not himself a competing candidate) said that he wanted to kick Romney's teeth in. Romney was asked
for his response. He said, "My only comment is, 'Don't touch the hair.'"

marymary100 - 3-1-2008 at 21:53

It is still possible that there will be a late entrant such as Gore or Bloomberg.

scholar - 3-1-2008 at 22:25

Mayor Bloomberg said on December 31 that he will not run (but, he could reverse himself).

Vice-President Gore indicated he did not intend to run (but, he could change his mind as well).

Bloomberg would run as an independent. Since he ran for mayor as a Republican, and is not well-known across the country, he would be starting from
behind. I don't think he would have any chance of winning as an independent, but he might make take enough votes from one or the other major
candidates to tip the election the other way.

I think it is too late to get on the primary ballots to be a Republican or Democrat candidate. I think Al Gore would be a remote possibility, but it
could happen if the Democrat convention were deadlocked. The rules say that the delegates must vote for the winner of their state's primary
initially. If there is a three-way or four-way split of the votes, so that no one has enough on the first ballot, then the delegates are allowed to
vote according to their judgement. If their own candidate were not going to win, Gore could conceivably be drafted. (I think there is some variation
in the delegate rules, from state to state.)

The turnout was huge--in round numbers, 300,000--double a normal turnout.

Obama did better than Hilliary among women, 3.5 to 1.

I read a statistic, that Iowa is 95% white. (I'm not sure that is true. If so, it is counting Hispanics as white, to which they usually take
exception.) There is some thinking that much of Hillary's support among black people is contingent on the thought that a black candidate would not
be likely to win (and it would be a shame to lose to the Republicans). If this is manifestly not so, quite a few people may switch allegiance.

I have also heard the opinion that a lot of money will come in for Obama. Some people who did not think he had a good chance will now back him. It
may be that Hillary will have to crank up the illegal money machine again to match him. (When caught with such contributions, she has voluntarily
returned them for the sake of looking cleaner. If she needs the money, she may stop doing that.)

scholar - 4-1-2008 at 05:45

Obama deserves congratulations. This early victory is truly historic.

janet - 4-1-2008 at 09:18

I note, however, we've had no answer to whether or not someone with no insurance can be treated...? Isn't that germane to the debate about
healthcare?

John Barnes - 4-1-2008 at 12:08

Well it just goes to show Iowa does not hold a Colour bar. I only know of America by what the films and tv coverage portray and I always had the
impression there was an underlying current of racial disharmony. .going by the showing s of the Iowa caucus I am totally wrong, as Iowa according to
the news is 95% white and Obama has left Hilary Clinton reeling and returned in third place, shows how much I know and what to believe about American
policy and their sentiments, I really thought
the colour card would have been played, out in the Midwest. wrong again, I credit the American opinion jmb

marymary100 - 4-1-2008 at 16:41

I'll await the final result with baited breath.

scholar - 4-1-2008 at 17:02

Jmb, sadly, I would have to admit that there will probably be some bigots who would vote against Senator Obama because of his racial heritage. I
expect there will also be some people who will show some prejudice the other way, and make a point of voting for him, even though they don't usually
vote.

I would prefer that a fiscal conservative would ultimately be elected. If the Republicans nominate one, I would rather he be running against Hillary,
because she would be easier to beat.

Governor Huckabee seems to be a big-spending Republican (who raised taxes and spending in Arkansas). If he is chosen as the nominee, the choice will
be between two big spenders. (The large expenditures under President Bush have drawn criticism from both parties, although the Republicans in
Congress did not show restraint when they held the majority, either.)

John Barnes - 4-1-2008 at 17:32

It really does not matter who gets in as long they are best candidate for the job and they represent all of the people even those who did not vote for
them America need a president who will nurse your country back to its former glory and look after the people and devote time for the whole country .
jmb

delanti - 4-1-2008 at 23:52

If you want to see how much control a President has over running this country, see Charlie Wilsons War. Or at least read the story about Charlie
Wilson. It demonstrates clearly how much wheeling and dealing goes on in the back rooms of Washington and how events in the world can be changes
without a vote of Congress.

scholar - 5-1-2008 at 00:48

A president can accomplish things if he can get the necessary support and cooperation.

In President Reagan's case, he was sometimes effective in getting cooperation from the congress.

In President Clinton's case, he accomplished most when he found common ground with the Republicans (such as welfare reform).

In President Bush's case, he has often been blocked by the Democrats when they disapprove, but he and Republicans in the Senate have been blocking
the Democrat majority in much of what they want to do.

scholar - 5-1-2008 at 00:59

I have been reading about Romney's defeat in Iowa. A couple of factors that I had not caught last night:

Among non-Evangelicals, Romney beat Huckabee 2 to 1. It was the Evangelicals, a number of whom were first-timers, that really gave Huckabee his
victory. The majority of the Republicans participating were Evangelicals.

In Iowa, Independent voteers and Republican voters can chose to participate in either caucus. The large turnout at the Democrat caucuses is partly
from a large number of Independents and Republicans choosing to participate. If those Republicans "come home" to vote Republican in November, they
might vote for whomever the Republican candidate is (or not, if they have a reason).

scholar - 5-1-2008 at 04:42

One of the "dirty trick" aspects at Iowa was push-polling. You get a phone call, and are asked to answer some survey questions. The interviewer
says something bad about Edwards, and then asks, "Does this influence your opinion of him a lot, a little, or not at all?" Then, the interviewer
says something bad about Obama, and asks the same question. After you answer, the interviewer is done.

On the program I saw, an Iowa school teacher thought to herself, "Wait a minute! They said something bad about Edwards, then Obama, but there was
nothing about Hillary Clinton." She figured it was either Hillary's campaign, or someone else on Hillary's side. She disliked the negativity, so
she caucused for Obama, not Clinton.

The program also spoke about the practice of digging up bad information about an opponent and telling a news outlet about it.

Sean Hannity, a conservative radio/TV person (who is sometimes very harsh in his own statements), has said he has a source who tells him Hillary's
campaign has some material of that nature they will try to use to knock Obama off track. I am of the impression that Obama is the cleanest first-tier Democratic candidate.

Badgergirl - 5-1-2008 at 16:33

Quote:

Originally posted by John Barnes
I am a product of my generation and the word coloured was used then, it is much better than using the N word, who made it politically correct not to
use Coloured ? it is used without any prejudice on my part and as long as it is legal it will still be used by my generation.and I don't think the
same generation need a lesson on political correctness by a younger generation. jmb

It implies you would lump an Indian with an African based on their darker skin. Compared to yours, inadvertently impliying you place yourself as a
benchmark.

Colour is any other race but we pasty faced cacuasians. A "black" man is more defining than just "coloured" even though it is techically as
innacurrate as saying I'm White. (actually, pinkish and blotchy)

If you get mugged by a black guy one day, telling the police he's coloured would just make them ask "what colour?"

I don't think you DO use your own race as a benchmark, but the generational language you use has been replaced for a good reason.
scholar - 5-1-2008 at 18:04

A day and a half has passed, and I haven't heard anything about any candidates getting votes from out-of-state visitors. I congratulate every
candidate for not taking advantage of the looseness of the rules to add to their totals in that way.

scholar - 5-1-2008 at 18:13

Now, it's on to the New Hampshire primary, on Tuesday. Anyone with a clear victory in both contests will have done himself a lot of good.
Conventional wisdom is that Huckabee is not likely to win in a state with a much smaller number of evangelicals. If he were to win anyway, it would
speak against the idea that his candidacy is overly dependent on that group. Romney, who had led in Iowa until a recent shift toward Huckabee, would
very much like to win New Hampshire. McCain did well 8 years ago in New Hampshire, and reporters have thought he will do well again.

On the Democrat side, Edwards is not expected to do as well in New Hampshire. The question is, will Hillary do better? There isn't much time for
her to make any changes in her campaign. However, when Bill Clinton first sought the presidency, he lost in Iowa and New Hampshire, but still won the
nomination and ultimately the presidency.

LSemmens - 6-1-2008 at 06:50

I don't understand any of this. would it not be much easier for everyone to throw their hat into the ring and say we are all presidential candidates
and let the entire nation decide? His opponents could then be selected for the various tiers of government depending upon the number of votes
received.